A principal magistrate has won a court order compelling the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to release records explaining why he missed out on promotion, but failed in his attempt to have the recruitment process nullified or to secure damages.
Employment and Labour Relations Court Judge Jacob Gakeri ruled that Principal Magistrate Gathogo Sogomo was entitled to information relating to his unsuccessful bid for promotion to Senior Principal Magistrate, including his interview scorecard, the interview panel's recommendations, the reasons for his non-promotion and the commission's decision.
However, the judge found that the magistrate had not proved discrimination, unfair treatment or violation of his constitutional rights to justify the court interfering with the promotion exercise.
Mr Sogomo sued the Judicial Service Commission, arguing that despite serving in the Judiciary for more than two decades and maintaining an exemplary performance record, he had repeatedly been denied promotion without any explanation.
Court records show Mr Sogomo joined the Judiciary as a Resident Magistrate on June 21, 2004. He rose through the ranks and was promoted to Principal Magistrate in November 2018 while serving at Tigania Law Courts. In May 2023, he was transferred to Mombasa Law Courts.
In July 2025, the JSC invited him for an interview for promotion to Senior Principal Magistrate. According to the petition, he was furnished with his official performance records on the morning of the interview, which showed what he described as outstanding judicial output. He also claimed he was the longest-serving judicial officer among those interviewed for the position.
But when the commission released the names of successful candidates, his name was missing.
He said he had also been overlooked during the 2023 and 2024 promotion exercises despite having no unresolved disciplinary or integrity issues after an earlier interdiction was dismissed in 2023.
After missing out, Mr Sogomo wrote to the JSC seeking written reasons for the decision. He also requested his interview scorecard, the interview panel's recommendations and the commission's minutes relating to the recruitment exercise.
When the information was not immediately forthcoming, he moved to court.
Frustrated and demoralised
He argued that the commission's refusal to explain its decision had left him frustrated, embarrassed and demoralised.
According to the petition, the repeated failure to promote him had "created a toxic work environment causing him untold anguish, career embarrassment, punctured morale and stagnated his career progression."
He further claimed that although he was consistently posted to demanding stations such as Milimani Commercial Courts, Makadara Law Courts and Mombasa Law Courts, he continued to be overlooked whenever promotion opportunities arose.
Mr Sogomo asked the court to quash the promotion decision, compel the JSC to reconsider his application, award him Sh7 million in damages and order the commission to release all documents relating to the interview.
Through Chief Registrar of the Judiciary and JSC Secretary Winfridah Mokaya, the commission maintained that the promotion process was competitive, transparent and based on merit.
The commission said candidates were independently assessed by every member of the interview panel before their scores were averaged.
It told the court that promotions were based on several factors, including performance, integrity, knowledge of substantive and procedural law, case management skills, judicial temperament, communication skills and administrative ability.
The JSC insisted that seniority alone did not guarantee promotion and argued that Mr Sogomo simply failed to attain the minimum pass mark required for promotion.
On the request for interview records, the commission argued that releasing internal deliberations would undermine the confidentiality of its recruitment process and interfere with its constitutional mandate.
Justice Gakeri first rejected the commission's argument that the court lacked mandate to hear the dispute.
"It therefore goes without say that this Court possess the requisite mandate to examine the case and make a determination," the judge held in a judgment delivered on July 28, 2026.
On the claim that the magistrate had a legitimate expectation of promotion, the judge disagreed.
"The petitioner has not demonstrated that the respondent had made a clear, express and unambiguous promise that he would be promoted after the interview," Justice Gakeri ruled.
"The fact that he had participated in previous interviews could not avail him in this instance by dint of being a competitive process."
Claim for Sh7 million in damages
Justice Gakeri observed that although Mr Sogomo complained of being overlooked several times, he had not demonstrated how he had been treated differently from other candidates.
"The petitioner placed no material before the court from which it could discern discrimination," the judge said.
The judge, however, found that the commission had declined to release information relating to the interview.
"It is evident that the information sought pertains to the Petitioner only and it is only fair to the Petitioner that the information was availed to him," Justice Gakeri said.
"There is no justifiable reason as to why the Petitioner should not be given the scores he secured in the various aspects of the interview and the total mark vis-à-vis the threshold. The information may be a useful guide when he is preparing for future interviews," he added.
The court ordered the JSC to furnish Mr Sogomo with the reasons for his non-promotion, his interview scorecard, the panel's recommendations and the commission's decision relating to his application.
Justice Gakeri, however, declined to quash the promotion exercise, refused to order the JSC to reconsider the magistrate's application and rejected his claim for Sh7 million in damages after finding no constitutional rights had been violated. The judge directed that each party should bear its own costs.
